Skip to content

Conversation

@kalyazin
Copy link
Contributor

@kalyazin kalyazin commented Jan 16, 2026

Changes

Run memory monitor for restored VMs

Reason

Because we want to know the memory footprint for both booted and restored VMs.

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkbuild --all to verify that the PR passes
    build checks on all supported architectures.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

Because we want to know the memory footprint for both booted and
restored VMs.

To avoid the extra latency from the GET /machine_config API call when
running perf tests, only do it when the memory monitor is configured,
which is likely disabled in perf tests.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Kalyazin <[email protected]>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 83.24%. Comparing base (431559a) to head (e983061).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5634   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.24%   83.24%           
=======================================
  Files         277      277           
  Lines       29337    29337           
=======================================
  Hits        24423    24423           
  Misses       4914     4914           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-m5n.metal 83.58% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6a.metal 82.92% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6g.metal 80.29% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6i.metal 83.58% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7a.metal-48xl 82.91% <ø> (?)
5.10-m7g.metal 80.29% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7i.metal-24xl 83.55% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7i.metal-48xl 83.55% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m8g.metal-24xl 80.29% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m8g.metal-48xl 80.29% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 83.61% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m6a.metal 82.94% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 80.29% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 83.61% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7a.metal-48xl 82.93% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7g.metal 80.28% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7i.metal-24xl 83.62% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7i.metal-48xl 83.62% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m8g.metal-24xl 80.29% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m8g.metal-48xl 80.29% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@kalyazin kalyazin force-pushed the memmon branch 3 times, most recently from d9a2d0c to 1cb5675 Compare January 16, 2026 18:49
@kalyazin kalyazin marked this pull request as ready for review January 16, 2026 20:39
Free page hinting and reporting fragment guest memory VMAs and memory
monitor cannot recognise them in order to exclude from the calculation
of the Firecracker memory overhead.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Kalyazin <[email protected]>
This is a performance test.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Kalyazin <[email protected]>
@kalyazin kalyazin self-assigned this Jan 16, 2026
@kalyazin kalyazin added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Jan 16, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant